The End of an Era - After Almost a Century

[hatguy1]

I am totally fine with this being the end point. In these areas, this is likely the best option for everyone given the realities and limitations of the new technology- something which numerous posters have brought up.

Agreed. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like that option's even on the table. Sad.

 

[hatguy1]

Russian income tax rates for individuals are no where near as high as in the United States, so I am not sure exactly what you are talking about. Also, as far as I know, there are no income taxes at the state/local level in Russia- property and car taxes, yes.

My mistake. I should've been more specific. I can't even pronounce - let alone try to spell it to research it on the 'net - but the student is from one of the former parts of the USSR. We called the USSR and it's citizens Russia and the Russians for this old dog to learn new tricks by splitting out each one of the provinces, states or whatever they call 'em now that they all broke up. But whatever the heck the name of his homeland is, the taxation rate is 150% - according to him.

Re the "flat tax," I'm a big proponent of that myself. Unfortunately, I dont' think we'll ever live to see that come in - as a true flat, fixed percentage - because the entire taxation industry (IRS, CPAs etc) will all line up to oppose it because of all the folks in that industry it would put out of work.

I would be interested for further discussions somewhere on similar points if you could both provide me with sources you're basing the regressive and "no where near as high as the US" tax rates from. That would be useful information, if you would. Thanks.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I am totally fine with this being the end point. In these areas, this is likely the best option for everyone given the realities and limitations of the new technology- something which numerous posters have brought up.

Indeed. Keep in mind too that the "1 percent" figure people are throwing around here is a national average, not a regional one. We don't have a national phone company -- we have lots of regional ones. And those companies serving areas like mine -- predominantly rural, covering a broad geographic area, and having terrain that severely limits what can be done with wireless technology -- have far more than 1 percent of their customers depending on the existing copper-line system.

 

[hatguy1]

Indeed. Keep in mind too that the "1 percent" figure people are throwing around here is a national average, not a regional one. We don't have a national phone company -- we have lots of regional ones. And those companies serving areas like mine -- predominantly rural, covering a broad geographic area, and having terrain that severely limits what can be done with wireless technology -- have far more than 1 percent of their customers depending on the existing copper-line system.

I'm wondering why they're dumping the copper-line system in such areas? I'm wondering if there's compatibility of copper-line with new technologies issues in play there?

 

[LizzieMaine]

They aren't, at least not where I live. Our state law won't permit it. And that law has firm support as a matter of public safety.

 

[hatguy1]

Oh, that's good.

 

[vitanola]

My mistake. I should've been more specific. I can't even pronounce - let alone try to spell it to research it on the 'net - but the student is from one of the former parts of the USSR. We called the USSR and it's citizens Russia and the Russians for this old dog to learn new tricks by splitting out each one of the provinces, states or whatever they call 'em now that they all broke up. But whatever the heck the name of his homeland is, the taxation rate is 150% - according to him.

Re the "flat tax," I'm a big proponent of that myself. Unfortunately, I dont' think we'll ever live to see that come in - as a true flat, fixed percentage - because the entire taxation industry (IRS, CPAs etc) will all line up to oppose it because of all the folks in that industry it would put out of work.

I would be interested for further discussions somewhere on similar points if you could both provide me with sources you're basing the regressive and "no where near as high as the US" tax rates from. That would be useful information, if you would. Thanks.

The figures come from the Ernst & Young Worldwide Tax Guide, which may be found here: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Home

Other interesting information: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/flat_taxes_are_big_in_the_form.html

http://fredrikcoulter.wordpress.com...for-the-united-states-during-the-debt-crisis/

http://www.internationalpolicydiges...tax-and-financial-policy-impoverishes-russia/

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/35404/1/MPRA_paper_35404.pdf


A quick call to my brother, who manages the International Tax department at E & Y, asking about a former Soviet Republic with a 150% tax rate elicited hoots of laughter. Rich told me that he didn't think that I was that gullible.

 

[sheeplady]

I would be interested for further discussions somewhere on similar points if you could both provide me with sources you're basing the regressive and "no where near as high as the US" tax rates from. That would be useful information, if you would. Thanks.

I like how this site breaks it down (13% flat income tax), but it is unfortunately sourceless: http://www.worldwide-tax.com/russia/russia_tax.asp

If you search 13% Russian income tax rate, you get confirmation from other sites, but most of those sites use Russian sources and you have to dig a lot deeper to get the stats. (It is important to note that VAT is higher on many goods and services than in some places in the United States, but that is highly variable...)

The withholding rates in the U.S. for 2014 are available here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/n1036.pdf. You could argue that witholding rates are different than actual tax rates after deductions, which I'd buy but it is important to remember that the Russian income tax allows deductions as well. No idea if the level of deductions is similar. In Russia you apparently only have to file if you are asking for deductions, which is vastly different than in the U.S.


ETA: When I read this over I noticed my discussion of VAT is unclear. We don't have VAT in the U.S., we have sales tax. Since VAT is calculated in a much different way than sales tax, the two aren't really comparable.

 

[hatguy1]

A quick call to my brother, who manages the International Tax department at E & Y, asking about a former Soviet Republic with a 150% tax rate elicited hoots of laughter. Rich told me that he didn't think that I was that gullible.

That's interesting; wonder why this kid would tell me that. He's a grad student here studying business.... Oh, well; just goes to prove ya can't believe everything you're told.

But, hey; thanks to you and SheepLady for the links and sources.

 

[hatguy1]

When I read this over I noticed my discussion of VAT is unclear. We don't have VAT in the U.S., we have sales tax. Since VAT is calculated in a much different way than sales tax, the two aren't really comparable.

thanks for the sources and specifics. As for the VAT, the times I've went to Europe, I tried to send in for the reimbursement of the VAT (being non-citizen etc of those countries). My God, I found that almost as complicated as filing my taxes here in the States. Purchases must be over so many dollars at that store etc etc etc, original receipts blahblahblah, have to get the form from the customs folks at departing country, yadayadayada. I've given up even applying for it anymore (which is probably just what they want so they can keep the money.)

 

[sheeplady]

thanks for the sources and specifics. As for the VAT, the times I've went to Europe, I tried to send in for the reimbursement of the VAT (being non-citizen etc of those countries). My God, I found that almost as complicated as filing my taxes here in the States. Purchases must be over so many dollars at that store etc etc etc, original receipts blahblahblah, have to get the form from the customs folks at departing country, yadayadayada. I've given up even applying for it anymore (which is probably just what they want so they can keep the money.)

I don't bother applying for the VAT when I've left the EU either. Interestingly enough, according to that page I looked at, foreigners cannot get Russian VAT back. Foreigners are also taxed at 30% for income rather than 13%.

I'm wondering why they're dumping the copper-line system in such areas? I'm wondering if there's compatibility of copper-line with new technologies issues in play there?

It is basically a bait and switch issue, or at least that is what it is in my opinion. Fiber Optics are already in many areas. My area has been fiberoptic for a long long time. Technically both systems can be integrated, just as they are integrated now. The issue however is that the FCC has been entertaining plans for these updates from the major telecomm companies. All of these plans to my knowledge to date have suggested a trade of sorts- they'll be more than happy to update their systems and meet the FCC's goals IF they are allowed to drop 1% of the rural lines.

These rural lines are often the most unprofitable lines and in the past/ currently are federally mandated to be maintained. Basically these lines are seen as "drains" on the profitability of these companies by the companies themselves. Getting rid of these lines would increase their profitability as a company as a whole. The new fiber optics would not be a drain on their profitability in the "rest" (99%) of the country because higher rates could be charged and new services could be added to off-set the cost of new lines- and I have seen no proof that dumping the 1% of the customers that were left is necessary to make the switch to fiber optic profitable. In a lot of projections, these companies want to move towards fiber optics because of the increased costs they can charge and services they can offer. However, they see the move to fiber optics as an opportunity to negotiate dropping these lines.

Dropping the 1% is not necessary to move to fiber optics. It is an entirely artificial coupling of two entirely separate issues by the telecomm companies.

 

[Mickey85]

I got through about four pages before it all started blurring on me...it seems that the majority of people who like the pots system are those who have underground wires that don't go out in bad weather...

I live in a house that I bought from my parents. It's about 5 miles from town and has pole lines for electricity and phone lines. For the decade that my parents lived here, they lost electricity at least twice a winter, and phone service probably every other year or so, due to downed lines. The electric would be up within a day...the phone was out for two or three days at times, even with repeated cell phone calls in to the company.

When I moved here, i didn't worry about the phone lines. I have a cell phone that never loses service here. I don't see the point of having a hard line for me, as I do have very clear service, and anyone I'd want to call would be long distance anyway.

I do understand the need for the hard lines, as my parents current house has very little cell coverage (well, at least with sprint and AT&T), and for people in their situation, it's difficult to get a connection in ways other than a hard line. While there is a need for the hard lines, they do go down, especially when hanging.

 

[sheeplady]

I do understand the need for the hard lines, as my parents current house has very little cell coverage (well, at least with sprint and AT&T), and for people in their situation, it's difficult to get a connection in ways other than a hard line. While there is a need for the hard lines, they do go down, especially when hanging.

Part of the issue (and a reason why the landline or hard line system as you put it will never totally disappear in our lifetimes) is that cell phones piggy back onto hard line systems. When you make a cell phone call it isn't just going from tower to tower- there might be switches turned on that change that call into being carried from a cell tower, to a telephone line, to a microwave tower, back to a telephone line, to a cell tower, to another cell tower to your caller. In many ways, the landline system is the backbone of the cellular system in the United States. Without the landline infrastructure, the vast majority of your calls simply could not be placed.

So as goes the landline system so goes your cell phone calls. One of my concerns with the removal of POTS is if it not done carefully we'll not only have a messed up landline system but a messed up communication system. Having a cell phone won't be a shelter from that.

Our conception of calls either being all cellular or all land line is really a misconception. MCI was a company that was founded on using wireless communications in the early 1960s. And unless you're calling your neighbor who is using the same cell tower, chances are your communication is traveling over a landline someplace.

 

[F. J.]

One Percent . . .

I just wanted to point out one small item.

According to the United States Census Bureau, one percent of the current population is about 3,173,000. That is essentially all of Iowa at the last census. That is certainly nothing to sneeze at.